an advisory services panel report ada county highway district

Ada County Highway DistrictBoise, IdahoRegionalism, Consolidation, and the Future

June 17–22, 2007An Advisory Services Panel Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Panel Report2

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is toprovide leadership in the responsible use ofland and in creating and sustaining thrivingcommunities worldwide. ULI is committed to

• Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;

• Fostering collaboration within and beyondULI’s membership through mentoring, dia-logue, and problem solving;

• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;

• Advancing land use policies and design prac-tices that respect the uniqueness of both builtand natural environments;

• Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and

• Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address cur-rent and future challenges.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 38,000 members from 90 countries, represent-ing the entire spectrum of the land use and develop-ment disciplines. Professionals represented includedevelopers, builders, property owners, investors,architects, public officials, planners, real estatebrokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,academics, students, and librarians. ULI reliesheavily on the experience of its members. It isthrough member involvement and informationresources that ULI has been able to set standardsof excellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of the world’smost respected and widely quoted sources of ob-jective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2007 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

Cover photo ©Ada County Highway District.

Ada County, Idaho, June 17–22, 2007 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member who has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviewsof typically 50 to 75 key community representa-tives; and two days of formulating recommenda-tions. Many long nights of discussion precede thepanel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, thepanel makes an oral presentation of its findingsand conclusions to the sponsor. A written report isprepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partici-

pants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments areable to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’sissues and to provide recommendations in a com-pressed amount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffMarta V. GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community

Thomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Matthew RaderSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Romana KernsAdministrative Assistant, Advisory Services

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanel would like to thank the Ada CountyHighway District (ACHD) for inviting it torecommend strategies for improving rela-

tionships between ACHD transportation planningand design and local governments’ comprehensiveland use plans. Panel chair Charlie Long, speakingfor the entire panel, commends the district for thecourage it has demonstrated in seeking unbiasedsolutions to transportation and land use issuesthat are in the best interest of the community. Thepanel was struck by the district’s willingness toavoid “turf protection” and to pursue a good-faithsearch for sensible solutions.

The panel gained immeasurably from discussionswith ACHD commissioners; district staff mem-bers; elected officials of Boise, Eagle, Garden City,Kuna, Meridian, Star, and Ada County; represen-tatives of key institutions, planning organizations,and civic groups; local residents; and the IdahoTransportation Department. In particular, thepanel thanks John S. Franden, president of theACHD commissioners; William Schweitzer,ACHD director; Steve Price, ACHD attorney;and top staff members of ACHD for their helpfulexplanations of the context and policy issues fac-ing the highway district in carrying out its mis-sion. Their invaluable assistance in providing basicinformation and coordinating local logistical issueswas especially appreciated.

Mayors David Bieter (Boise), Nancy Merrill (Eagle),John Evans (Garden City), Tammy de Weerd (Merid-ian), and Nate Mitchell (Star); former mayor DeanObray (Kuna); and Ada County Commisioners PaulWoods, Fred Tilman, and Rick Yzaguirre provideduseful explanations of the city and county compre-hensive planning processes and policies, as well asinformation about their relationships—and in somecases, differences—with district activities. Boisecouncil members David Eberle and Elaine Cleggwere also helpful in this regard.

Finally, the panel wishes to thank the dozens ofother community, government, and business lead-ers, including members of the ULI District Coun-cil, who volunteered their time, thoughts, and ex-periences during the interview process. Opinionsfrom these officials and residents of Ada Countyaided the panel’s understanding of current growthissues and projected regional development prob-lems. Survey forms completed by almost 150 resi-dents also shed light on local concerns about therelationships between ACHD and the localgeneral-purpose governments.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7

The Panel’s Findings 11

How Should Development Change? 17

Changing the ACHD’s Role 19

Suggested Legislative Agenda 22

Creating a Contractual Alliance for Integrated Planning 24

Conclusion 29

About the Panel 30

Contents


Panel ChairCharles A. LongPresidentCharles A. Long Properties, LLCBerkeley, California

Panel MembersWilliam DowdDirector, Plan and Project Implementation Division

National Capital Planning CommissionWashington, D.C.

Matthew McKinneyDirector, Public Policy Research InstituteUniversity of MontanaHelena, Montana

Michael T. McLaughlinPart-time facultyCity Planning ProgramSan Diego State UniversityHemet, California

Douglas R PorterPresidentThe Growth Management InstituteChevy Chase, Maryland

Mary RobertsDirector of Community DevelopmentCity of LittletonLittleton, Colorado

David C. SlaterRetiredReston, Virginia

Jim SoulesPrincipalThe Cottage CompanyRedmond, Washington

Janet TaylorMayorCity of SalemSalem, Oregon

ULI Project StaffCary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Andrea HolthouserDirector of Annual GivingULI Foundation

ULI On-Site CoordinatorCarmen McCormickPanel Coordinator

ULI Panel and Project Staff


ULI has brought an advisory panel to AdaCounty three times in the past 12 years inresponse to requests to provide recom-mendations on regional growth issues. In

1995, the issues involved regional growth manage-ment. In 2005, the issue was the county’s approvalof large planned communities in its unincorpo-rated areas. In 2007, the issue involves the county-wide delivery of road construction and mainte-nance services.

The recommendations of the previous panels areinstructive, if only to highlight the reality thatregional growth is a tough business and requiresongoing commitment. The 1995 panel made thefollowing recommendations:

• Regional leadership must move beyond visionsand policies to implement workable programsand regulations.

• The panel recommends that the Boise region de-velop an integrated growth management strat-egy based on sound land use planning and envi-ronmental protection, a workable fiscal strategyand a coordinated transportation policy, specifi-cally addressing:

• Agricultural land preservation to preventurban sprawl

• Preservation of open space and sensitivelands

• Respecting and strengthening areas of im-pact: before communities in the Boise regioncan grow well they must know where theirown boundaries are, as well as the boundariesof other communities. Currently, develop-ments and annexations appear to be occur-ring in some communities without clear rela-tionships to adopted plans and to areas ofimpacts.

The 2005 panel made these recommendations:

Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment

• The panel recommends that Ada County and itscommunities make the existing “area of impact”system work. The county and its cities must focuson identifying specific nodes of development andintensity and then guide growth to those areas.It is also important to identify areas where de-velopment should not occur and create provi-sions to protect these lands.

Location map.

Regional map.

95

9

2084

8

G O O D I N G

L

A D A

C

C A N Y O N

M

E L M O R E

P A Y E T T E

B

B O I S E

M

G E M

C

Boise

C

KunaMeridian

B

EagleStar Garden City

15

15

84

84

86

8

90

N E V A D A U T A H

W Y O M I N

O R E G O N

I D A H O

M O N T A N A

W H I N G T O N

C A N A D A

KetchumSun ValleyBoise

Twin Falls

Idaho Falls

Lewiston

Coeur d'Alene


• The panel recommends that the county and citiescome together to discuss development on theirmutual edges and to maximize their commoninterests. Specific attention should be paid toareas where there are overlapping rural and de-veloped lands, regional transportation corridorsand open spaces.

• It is imperative that there be complete buy-in to the Blueprint for Quality Growth [the plan forregional growth formulated in 2006] and that itis followed by all. Without regional coopera-tion, the long term economic viability of theTreasure Valley is put at risk. A key componentof the panel’s recommendation is that AdaCounty and its cities come together and stopacting unilaterally.

Whether these recommendations have been fol-lowed is not the subject of the current panel. Whathas happened over the past 12 years cannot bechanged, and we can only hope to control our fu-ture, as reflected in the questions presented tothe panel.

The Panel’s AssignmentThis panel was brought to Ada County to helpresolve disputes among the Ada County HighwayDistrict (ACHD) and the land use jurisdictions(various cities and the county) concerning the ser-vice provided by the district and the consistencyof decisions made by the land use jurisdictions thataffect the regional road capital improvement plan.The panel was requested to respond to questionsin three major policy areas:

• Regionalism

• Because of the fractured politics and indepen-dent desires of local governments, is regional-ism desirable and even possible in Ada County?

• If so, what does the panel recommend thatcitizens, community leaders, and elected offi-cials do to keep regional efforts alive and makethem successful?

• If not, what does the panel recommend tocitizens, community leaders, and elected offi-cials to provide the best services without aregional effort?

• Consolidation

• Is consolidation of transportation servicesworking in Ada County today?

• If so, what can the community do to minimizethe tension between local governments?

• If not, should the community replace its exist-ing forms of consolidate government and, ifso, with what?

• ACHD’s future and role

• Is ACHD a benefit (efficiencies vs. politics) tothe community?

• Is ACHD the right form of consolidated gov-ernment for the Ada County community?

• If so, what can be done to help ACHD gaingreater support from other governmentalleaders and acceptance by them of some fi-nancial inequities to provide better regionalfacilities?

• If not, what is a better solution and systemfor Ada County?

Summary of RecommendationsThe problems reflected in ACHD’s questions forthe panel are of long standing, with roots that goback to the district’s formation in 1972. But theyhave been exacerbated by Ada County’s tremen-dous growth over the last 15 years. Issues havearisen in decisions regarding the adequacy of fund-ing for new roads, how best to involve the commu-nity in road designs, whether to include sidewalksand landscaping in road construction, and how tofind the additional funding when a land use juris-diction changes its development plans to accommo-date more growth than previously planned. Thepanel could fairly conclude that this ongoing dis-pute has been a component of the same regionalgrowth issues that brought the prior panels here.In fact, some of the recommendations of prior pan-els may directly apply to the current disagreements.

The panel’s version of this dispute differs to someextent from the versions of the participants. Onthe basis of information gathered from all the par-ties involved, the panel suggests the following


facts and concerns are keys to improving the re-gion’s future.

The district maintains more than 2,100 miles ofroads with 520 bridges throughout the county atan annual cost of $41 million (fiscal 2007 budget).It invests about $50 million annually in roadwayconstruction to serve growth. While Ada County’spopulation has virtually doubled in the last 15 years,the district has accumulated a huge backlog ofunfunded roads. Its 20-year capital plan projects$768.3 million of new road construction in 2006dollars with an estimated total cost of over $1 bil-lion, including a reasonable rate of inflation. Thelargest share of roads that the district maintains isin the city of Boise, and the largest share of prop-erty tax revenues that pay for maintenance alsocomes from the city of Boise.

The panel received a lot of input on what kind of jobthe district is doing. The panel interviewed morethan 100 people involved in planning for growth anddevelopment and, in particular, transportation plan-ning. Another source of information was the 150responses to questionnaires rating the planningand road-building performance of the district aswell as the cities and the county. In general, mostof the ratings of the district’s performance in plan-ning and building roads were extremely negative.Apparently, many people felt that neither the dis-trict nor the cities and county were doing a goodjob of responding to growth. Despite these nega-tive comments, many survey respondents felt thatthe district does a good job of providing cost-effec-tive maintenance of existing roads and highways.Many also responded that the district was bestsituated to expand and manage the countywideroad network.

As the panel analyzed the data provided by thedistrict, comments from the questionnaires, andthe information from the interviews, the panelclearly saw that the district faces four fundamen-tal concerns that need to be resolved:

• The district does not have enough money to ful-fill its mission. This conclusion is a fact ratherthan an opinion. For comparison, the panel ex-amined the road expenditures of the RegionalTransportation Commission (RTC) and localjurisdictions in Washoe County (the location of

Reno). Washoe County is the same size and grow-ing at about the same rate as Ada County. Thefact is that the Washoe County region (both theRTC and the local jurisdictions who maintain localroads) spends $2 per capita annually on roadsfor every $1 spent by the Ada County HighwayDistrict. The Washoe County RTC collects $3.50for every $1.00 that the ACHD collects in devel-opment impact fees. At the current funding lev-els, these figures highlight why the ACHD islikely to fall further and further behind in fund-ing needed road improvements unless countyleaders find ways to obtain more money.

• Related to this scarcity of funding is the com-plaint of some jurisdictions that they are not re-ceiving their fair share of district revenues. Theyassert that all the locally generated revenues(property taxes, registration fees, and impactfees) should be returned as expenditures withintheir boundaries. The panel suggests that thisissue is more a direct consequence of the scarcityof overall funding than any unfairness in distrib-ution of funding. In fact, returning all propertytax revenues to the jurisdiction of origin wouldjeopardize the funding of road maintenance inundeveloped rural areas.

Property tax subsidies from urban jurisdictionsto maintain roads in rural areas are actually inthe best interest of the region and should not bechanged. The most important need for improv-ing funding is not distribution, it is adequacyand, in particular, the adequacy of impact fees.The panel strongly suggests revisiting the im-pact fee program and revising the impact feelevels so that growth begins to pay its own way.This revision should include attempts to changethe state enabling law for impact fees and en-acting new laws to provide options for develop-ers to finance the impact fee burden using land-secured financing, as described in the section ofthis report on the legislative agenda.

• The district cannot plan how to spend the scarcemoney it has because the cities and the countydo not follow their own land use plans. Becausethe cities and the county compete with eachother to attract tax-generating development,they approve unanticipated traffic-generatingdevelopment not shown in their land use plans


cities’ and county’s land use plan and not imposenew and improved roads on the community thatthe cities and county do not want. In other words,ACHD needs to see the cities and county as itscustomers. No other county in this country hasa countywide road district that builds and main-tains all the roads in its cities. After closely ex-amining this unique service, the panel concludedthat the district’s countywide service provisionis a major benefit for county residents and busi-nesses. The panel’s recommendations are shapedto preserve the value of the countywide high-way district but change the parts of the districtthat are not working.

• The panel believes that the county leadershipneeds to improve the quality of development.The panel observed firsthand the existing andproposed development patterns and the conse-quences of the county’s very rapid growth. Onthe basis of these observations, the panel be-lieves that the leadership in this county shouldfocus on fostering higher-quality developmentthroughout the county.

• The leadership needs to create a strong coalitionto change state legislation over time to providethe tools needed to accommodate growth. Thisrecommendation includes creating innovativefunding sources and better growth managementtools that are currently denied under state law.

• To accomplish these goals, the panel recommendsthat the cities, county, and district form a con-tractual joint powers authority. Such an author-ity would provide a forum for integrating thevarious local comprehensive plans and impactareas and for conforming the district’s capitalprogram to the integrated plans. The contractualauthority would approve subsequent changes incomprehensive plans only if the funding for roadimprovements to serve such changes was avail-able. If land use changes are not associated withthe needed funding, the district would be autho-rized to not sign plat maps and to not fund anyimprovements to serve proposed changes.

The remaining sections of this report detail the ra-tionale and purposes of these recommendations.

or annexation areas, which makes planning bythe disctrict even more difficult. Without someway for the cities and the county to help pay forthe additional costs of the new roads requiredby their unanticipated land use decisions, thedistrict will fall even further behind.

• Even with scarce money, the district tries to buildsome roads that the cities and the county do notwant or that they feel are wrongly designed.Because the cities and the county do not coordi-nate their land use plans with the district’s road-building plan, the district frequently finds itselfbuilding roads through neighborhoods that theland use jurisdictions feel are too big or that donot have enough sidewalks or that have thewrong landscaping.

• The district fails to meet many of the cities’ andcounty’s needs for routine service. Frequently,the district simply fails to understand the needsthat cities have for responding to constituentconcerns. The district is perceived as servingprimarily developers who rely on the district tobuild new roads. Most citizens are unfamiliarwith district policies and duties, so when ordi-nary citizens have a concern over a crosswalk ora stop sign, they call their city officials, who inturn call the district. The result of this discon-nect between city customers and district cus-tomers is that the district fails to respond quicklyto the cities’ customers—its own constituents.

As difficult as these problems seem, the panelbelieves that they are all fixable, provided thatthe elected leaders of the cities, county, and dis-trict commit themselves to setting aside their ac-cumulated personal and jurisdictional animositiesof the past ten years and commit to working onsolutions. Here are the major themes of thepanel’s recommendations:

• The leadership of the cities and the county needto address the consequences of jurisdictionalcompetition for new development. It is this com-petition that creates the instability in land useplanning and makes road and other infrastruc-ture planning so disorderly.

• The district needs to change the way it deliversservice. It needs to plan its roads to serve the

Ada County, Idaho, June 17–22, 200711

The panelists gatherinformation about AdaCounty through a flyover.

The panel had several opportunities to be-come familiar with the land use and trans-portation issues facing this area. A field trip,including a flyover and a drive-through, pro-

vided an understanding of growth and develop-ment patterns. Panelists interviewed more than100 people representing diverse viewpoints andreceived more than 150 completed questionnairesfrom interested residents. This information wassupplemented by a review of numerous docu-ments provided by the highway district and otheragencies. Therefore, the panel’s findings are basedon what people told the panel, what the panel re-viewed in various documents, and what it saw onthe ground.

What Is WorkingAcross the board, a strong common interest insustaining the quality of life seems to exist withinthe valley. Everyone expressed a tremendoussense of pride in this valley. Everyone wanted itto be a better place to live, work, and play. Re-gardless of their views on land use and trans-portation, the people of this valley are passionateand care deeply about growth, development, andthe quality of life.

Given this broad-based concern, not surprisingly anumber of regional dialogues and planningprocesses have taken place. Those efforts have in-cluded, but are not limited to, the following:

• Blueprint for Good Growth, a regional plan in-volving extensive citizen participation, that isoriented to achieving the smart growth goals ofmore-compact development patterns to retainthe environmental qualities so highly valued byresidents, to be achieved through voluntary co-operation of the local jurisdictions;

• Communities in Motion, a six-county long-rangeplan developed by COMPASS, the region’s met-ropolitan transportation planning organization,

that also promoted the location of growth nearurban areas with ready availability of services;

• Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan,an outgrowth of the Blueprint for Good Growth,aimed at addressing the best methods to man-age growth for a sustainable future, which in-cludes new roadway design standards that con-form to existing and planned land uses andurban design standards to be implemented bythe cities and the county (commonly referred toas street typology);

• Treasure Valley Partnership, which brings themayors of towns and cities in Ada and Canyoncounties together to promote collaborativerelationships;

• Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, whichamong its activities has sponsored annual lead-ership conferences focused on regional issues;and

• Blue Ribbon Panel, which in 2003 consideredand made recommendations for improving re-gional transportation planning.

The Panel’s Findings


The panel formed the impression that leaders inthe public and private sectors, as well citizens andrepresentatives from nongovernmental organiza-tions, understand that their futures are intercon-nected and that working together to guide the re-gion’s growth is imperative.

In addition to these various regional conversa-tions, the six cities and towns and Ada Countyhave completed or are updating comprehensiveland use plans to help guide growth and develop-ment within their jurisdictions. These efforts haveidentified “areas of impact” that provide some in-dication of the goals and aspirations of individual

communities. In other words, between regionaland local efforts, there is no lack of planning forfuture growth.

The panel’s sense is that the county—if not thevalley or the region as a whole—is lucky to have aunique countywide entity to build, operate, andmaintain the road system. ACHD not only pro-vides an effective and efficient means to managethe road system but also provides a great founda-tion on which to better integrate land use andtransportation planning. In addition, the publicgenerally views ACHD as an agency that does agood job of operating and maintaining the existingroad system in the county (according to 55 percentof the survey respondents and most of the inter-viewees) and recognizes that having a regional en-tity build and maintain the road system for alllocal jurisdictions creates economies of scale. Fur-thermore, ACHD appears to be open to change,given its willingness to ask the ULI panel to ex-amine its performance. Some people, includingACHD staff and commissioners, acknowledge thatthe district is already in the process of changing—trying to become more service oriented and towork more effectively with local jurisdictions,businesses, and the public.

Areas for ImprovementAlthough the highway district and local govern-ments possess a number of positive attributes onwhich to build, the panel identified a number ofareas that could be improved. First, despite thevarious regional conversations and planningprocesses, a common vision does not seem to existfor land use and development in the valley. Veryfew jurisdictions have adopted and are activelyusing the proposals for guiding growth that arepresented in the Blueprint for Growth or Commu-nities in Motion plans. Although most local juris-dictions have completed and are using their owncomprehensive land use plans, these plans do notalways embrace the regional goals and aspirationsspelled out in the Blueprint and other regionalplans. Moreover, the local comprehensive land useplans are not very well coordinated across juris-dictional boundaries, a lack that often creates con-flict at the edges where impact areas meet andoverlap. (The survey found that 90 percent of re-

These land uses charac-terize the “disconnect” inland use decision making.


spondents believe that growth in Ada County isnot well planned.)

The panel heard that local comprehensive land useplans are frequently changed in response to neweconomic opportunities. Local jurisdictions seemto compete as to who can build faster. In annexa-tion actions and determinations of impact areas,jurisdictions appear to be reaching out to establishcontrol over large undeveloped areas with little tono communication and coordination with neighbor-ing jurisdictions and with little reference to re-gional growth policies that call for compact devel-opment and protection of open space.

The lack of a common vision, along with the ever-changing local comprehensive plans, has createddifficulties for ACHD in effectively building andmaintaining roads. The district does not have afirm plan to guide its work. In the panel’s inter-views and discussions, the word “disconnect” wasfrequently used to characterize land use decisionsand capital improvement investments, fostered inpart by inadequate communication between thecity and county governments, on one hand, andACHD, on the other, as well as continually chang-ing land use plans. Another factor is that ACHDtakes five years or so to design, schedule, and con-struct road improvements.

In addition, an unusual amount of conflict and per-sonal animosity appears to exist among the lead-ership of the jurisdictions. Given the pace ofgrowth and change in the valley, people are notsurprisingly very busy and often neglect to takethe time and show the patience that is essential indealing with such complicated issues. Moreover,they exude a palpable sense of urgency about thework at hand, and although that is understandablegiven the pace of growth, this posture means lead-ers and others do not spend enough time focusingon the long-term interests of the valley. This senseof urgency also seems to create a culture of top-down planning, at the expense of more-inclusiveplanning processes that allow people to buildtrust, understanding, and a common vision thatleaders and citizens alike can embrace and arewilling to implement. Without effective workingrelationships, projects are delayed or implementedin ways inconsistent with people’s expectations,

such as the recent experiences with the CurtisRoad and Ustick Road projects that provoked citi-zen complaints about the land use effects of roadimprovements.

Although the cities could do a better job of com-municating and working together, the panel alsoidentified a number of areas where ACHD mightimprove:

• ACHD could do a better job at working withthe cities (according to 86 percent of the surveyrespondents).

Construction on UstickRoad is one example ofthe many frustrationsvoiced by residents inAda County.


• ACHD has not been as responsive as desirablein responding to local officials’ requests for im-provements, such as bus stop and speed limitsigns, crosswalks, and the use of sidewalks bycafés.

• ACHD historically is viewed as focusing on theinterests of developers rather than those ofcities and their residents, which logically are itsprimary clients.

• ACHD frequently is perceived as primarily aroad-widening agency rather than a full-scaletransportation service provider.

Three additional themes emerged from the panel’sfindings. First, the panel sensed that many peopleare frustrated by the lack of an integrated, valley-wide transportation planning system. Residents ofthe area would like to see ACHD, COMPASS, Val-ley Regional Transit, and the Idaho Transporta-tion Department come together to create a work-

In the absence of a changein direction, sprawlingdevelopment will continueoutward.


able transportation plan for individual communi-ties and the region at large. Second, the panel con-stantly was told that simply not enough money isavailable for meeting the growing demands fornew roads and for maintaining existing roads—and impact fees are both inadequate and cumber-some for smaller communities to use. Finally, itwas pointed out that the state legislature has beenunwilling to provide the fiscal and regulatory toolsrequired to manage growth better (for example,the recent failed attempt to permit a local optiontax to support transit improvements).

Likely Consequences of Current TrendsThe consequences of the county’s present patternsof development and transportation directly relateto the preceding issues; they also echo the findingsof the 1995 and 2003 ULI reports. No doubt theyare familiar to most residents of this area. Clearly,Ada County is evolving from a rural, agriculture-based landscape, with large family-owned landholdings, to an area dotted with subdivisions withhigh trip-generation rates. This change from agri-culture and a roadway system oriented to servethe needs of local ranchers and related agribusi-nesses is now asked to meet the demands of agrowing, very mobile population. The rural com-munities and towns that supported the agricul-tural economy and lifestyle are struggling to ac-commodate the new populations coming in to takejobs created by the high-tech companies locatinghere.

In the absence of a change in direction, these con-ditions are likely to exacerbate the growth prob-lems, with the following consequences:

• Sprawling development will continue outwardfrom the established towns and cities—essen-tially extending the “Trends” expectations forfuture development instead of the “CommunityChoices” model adopted as the regional plan.Ultimately, growth will spill into adjacent coun-ties and towns that likely will be unprepared fordevelopment.

• The spread of development will escalate trafficcongestion throughout the county as

• Residents and commuters from other areascontinue to depend almost exclusively on au-tomobile travel;

• Improvements in the availability of transitservice are shortchanged and delayed;

• The size of the developed area expands andtrips become longer; and

• The jobs/housing balance worsens—housingand associated retail development spreadwest and south while jobs remain focused inthe eastern end of the county, generatinglonger commuting trips.

• The county will experience major losses of openspace, farms, and ranches, including the re-markable visual environment formed by thefoothills that contribute so much to the charac-ter of the region.

• Competition will increase among jurisdictions toseize economic opportunities, fund infrastruc-ture, and provide adequate facilities—with ju-risdictions essentially focusing on short-termgains at the expense of long-term value.

• Conflicts between jurisdictions will heighten asthey pursue annexations and long-term controlof expanded development areas, which also willrequire continued and costly extensions of infra-structure systems.

• Eventually, the county’s governments and agen-cies will experience greater public rebellion andpolitical turmoil as a consequence of a decline ininfrastructure capacities—especially in thetransportation system—and may well adoptgrowth restrictions, such as moratoriums andreductions in the intensity of development.

Although the panel acknowledges the need forflexibility of comprehensive planning to accommo-date changing conditions, the lack of a common vi-sion and commitments to policy-based land useplans is creating a development pattern thatseems to be compromising the valley’s quality oflife (83 percent of survey respondents concludedthat growth as it currently occurs in the countydoes not contribute to a better quality of life). Cur-rent growth-management practices are eroding


the individual character of communities; creatingtransportation congestion; and limiting individualand collective abilities to create self-sustainingcommunities that include jobs, cultural and recre-ational opportunities, housing, and other vital as-pects of community life. At the same time, thecounty is losing its agricultural lands, open space,and surrounding foothill environments to poorlydirected development.

Countering these trends calls for strong guidanceof the county’s development; such guidance will, inturn, require effective cooperation among thecounty’s local jurisdictions. Experience across thenation demonstrates that regional collaboration isnot easy. It is hard work. But the timing is ripe totake action, and starting with successes that canbe built upon is an important first step. The

process will take time, patience, leadership, com-mitment, and a willingness to work across bound-aries of all kinds. The panel’s recommendationsthat follow are intended to assist in putting thehighway district and local governments on theright track. The remainder of the report detailsfour specific recommendations for change:

• How development should change;

• Recommended changes in the district’s role;

• A proposed legislative agenda; and

• Creating a contractual alliance for integratingland use and infrastructure planning.

Open space is being lostat the foothills.


Local governments and agencies in AdaCounty can promote patterns of land usethat contribute to residents’ quality of lifeand also support a well-connected trans-

portation system. Many aspects of the Blueprintfor Growth and Communities in Motion plans areintended to accomplish this objective. They pro-pose growth policies and actions that are similar inmany respects to “smart growth” principles thatcommunities across the nation are adopting toguide development. These principles include thefollowing value-enhancing practices:

• Fostering distinctive communities with compactdesigns that create a strong sense of place andarchitectural merit;

• Strengthening existing communities;

• Expanding choices of transportation (such astransit) and connectivity;

• Expanding housing options to serve a broadrange of households near job centers;

• Aiming for economic sustainability: encouraginggood jobs—not commercial, retail, and service-type jobs—to locate toward the west could re-duce much of the commuting (possibly a “shovelready” industrial park could be developed to at-tract jobs to the western part of the county);

• Maintaining the productivity of agricultural andother resource lands;

• Protecting environmentally sensitive lands andlandscapes;

• Providing adequate drainage and water quality;

• Maintaining and expanding fiscally responsibleinfrastructure systems; and

• Sustaining development qualities that enhanceair quality.

Local comprehensive plans and individual deci-sions by elected officials about proposed develop-ments frequently disregard these principles, how-ever, putting the region at risk for preserving itscherished living, working, and recreational quali-ties.

The panel recommends that Ada County and thecities of Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Merid-ian, and Star take the following steps toward en-suring qualities of development that will furtherthe preceding principles:

• Work together to reflect these countywide val-ues in each entity’s comprehensive plan.Whether acknowledged or not, the county’s andcities’ plans affect each other. They must aim to-ward aligning plan elements to integrate devel-opment and transportation patterns across ju-risdictional boundaries. These jurisdictions needto move past the state’s disinterest in tying de-velopment decisions to comprehensive plan poli-cies by encouraging elected officials to increasethe predictability and stability of adopted plans,if necessary by considering changes annuallyrather than semiannually.

• Adopt land use regulations and practices thatguide how development is placed on the landand within the community and designed inthree dimensions. Development design stan-dards are a key to achieving comprehensiveplan goals and ensuring architecturally distinc-tive and handsome settings for buildings, ade-quacy of green space and recreational andpedestrian amenities, and connectivity withtransportation and environmental systems.

• Engage in countywide transportation planningthat accommodates and supports desired landuse patterns. The cities and the county shouldbase transportation systems on the land usesspecified in comprehensive plans and work toexpand opportunities to promote walking, bik-

How Should Development Change?

ing, and the use of various transit modes as ameans of dampening the growth of highway androad congestion.

• Find and use public funding sources that provideadequate support for transportation improve-ments associated with the desired patterns ofdevelopment and land use. All jurisdictions andagencies concerned with transportation shouldbe enlisted in backing these efforts.


• Improve public participation practices that in-vite public dialogue while educating bothelected officials and their constituents about thenecessity of linking land use and transportation.All jurisdictions need to make decision-makingprocesses open and transparent to build supportfor these linkages. They must seek public col-laboration for determining priorities amongneeded improvements.


Changing the ACHD’s Role

As one of the few countywide highway dis-tricts in the country, the Ada CountyHighway District provides numerous ben-efits. It is doing a good job in maintaining

the roadway system. It has a clear understandingof the importance of performing preventive main-tenance to protect the county’s investment. Instates, counties, and cities where this need is notunderstood, roadway users must cope with a less-functional system and pay more to reconstruct thesystem more often. Having a countywide highwaydistrict in Ada County allows for cost-effectiveand efficient contracting to build roadways in anefficient and coordinated manner.

The highway district also is doing a good job of op-erating the highway system. For example, the re-gional traffic-signal system allows all of the trafficsignals to be coordinated to improve traffic flow.Many cities across the country acquire and imple-ment a variety of signal systems, making success-ful coordination virtually impossible.

These benefits are understood and appreciated byvirtually every resident of the county, and theseaspects of ACHD’s mission should be continuedwith minimal change. Nevertheless, the panel didhear concerns about the project selection and de-sign procedures, the district’s coordination withstakeholders and partners, and the need to bemore responsive to requests from the public andother jurisdictions.

Issues and ConcernsThe panel heard about many issues concerningACHD’s programs and practices that have beenidentified before. In fact, many of these issueswere identified by the 2003 ACHD AdvisoryCommittee that was chaired by Charles Winderand Hal Bunderson as well as in prior ULI re-ports. The major problems that have repeatedlysurfaced are the following:

• Rapid growth, coupled with uncoordinated de-velopment patterns, has created a significantchallenge to the highway district in developinglong-term and annual transportation improve-ment programs.

• Despite recent improvements in the district’smanagement, the public and local jurisdictionsneed more opportunities for early input on proj-ect designs.

• Impact fees currently being charged are low,and the funds derived from them fall well shortof addressing the costs of new developments tothe transportation system. Impact fees also arenot structured to encourage infill and higher-density development that can reduce or containtrip generation.

• ACHD does not have good partner relation-ships with all the cities, the county, and transitproviders.

• Funding sources are neither adequate nor cer-tain for supporting the roadway needs of thecounty (see Figure 1).

• Although the district has endeavored to im-prove its relationships with local governmentsover the past few years, all of these issues havecombined to create a negative public image forACHD along with an atmosphere poisoned bypersonal animosities.

Recommended Actions and PracticesThe district needs to realize that the cities, thecounty, and other transportation and transitproviders are its partners in providing transporta-tion services. The district, the cities, and AdaCounty should spend less time in court and moretime at a conference table as partners working to-ward common goals.


Create an Integrated Transportation Plan

In that spirit, perhaps the district’s most urgenttask is to collaborate with the cities and thecounty to develop an integrated, comprehensive,transportation improvement plan. The currentplans at regional and local levels are oriented toproviding short-term “solutions” for traffic con-gestion on major streets, pay little attention totravel modes other than automobiles, and fail torecognize land use policies in both regional andlocal plans. A comprehensive transportation plancrafted with the district’s partners can map out amore sensible, long-term mobility system that re-sponds to real conditions and issues influencingthe way residents and workers travel within theregion. Such an integrated plan can then guide de-velopment of long-term and annual capital im-provement plans to better serve the transporta-tion needs of the cities and county.

Inform the UsersThe process of selecting, designing, building, andmaintaining a highway system is complex. High-way professionals must understand that educationabout how decisions are made and how the systemworks is very important. The district must engagein an ongoing program to educate and inform thegeneral public, staffs of all partner jurisdictionsand agencies, and all elected officials about thedistrict’s work. Because the roadway projects aredesigned and built to serve the cities and the pub-lic, they should be provided with opportunities forappropriate input to the development process;these can be opportunities to inform and educateresidents as well as to seek their input and advice.On all but the most routine projects, public infor-mation meetings should be conducted when theproject scope is being developed. Projects shouldalso be better coordinated with representatives ofthe cities and the county. At each stage of designdevelopment, project plans should be circulated to

Figure 1ACHD Budget Summary

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2012 2018

Mill

ions

$

Total Budget

Capital Improvements

Operations and Maintenance

P R O J E C T E DE C T EP R O J E C T E DEP R O J E C T E DP R O J E C T E DP R O J E C T E DC T EP R O J E C T E DC T E

Source: ACHD June 2007 Briefing Book.


the jurisdictions for their review and comment.Depending on the needs of the jurisdiction, meet-ing with representatives personally to discuss theprojects in detail may be more effective.

Such a program is not a one-way effort in whichknowledgeable professionals curry support forplanned projects. On the contrary, it should seekto widen understanding of the needs, conditions,and constraints that influence selection and designof transportation improvements. In turn, a suc-cessful program will yield valuable inputs in theform of ideas, insights, and helpful solutions to en-gineering plans as well as timing and neighbor-hood impact issues. Such contributions can helpproduce a better design, and the goodwill the dis-trict will develop is priceless.

Last, the district should broadcast its successes.Others will publicize its failures, so the district isnot out of line in making sure that the publicknows about what it is doing well.

Respond to RequestsHighway agencies across the country continuallyreceive requests from members of the public andlocal governments for specific services, such as in-stalling new stop signs, traffic signals, and cross-walks. Often, the people who are using the high-way system on a daily basis have suggestions forimproving the system. These requests need to beaddressed in a professional and timely manner. Asone means of correcting its negative image, and asa partner in good standing with local govern-ments, the district should take responsibility fordoing this at the highest level of administration.

Keep Staff Up to DateRespected highway agencies invest in the ongoingeducation of their planners and engineers to en-sure the quality design of transportation projects.The district should focus on continuous improve-ment with respect to its expertise in and manage-ment of roadway design and project development.This expertise is especially important in areas likeAda County where a high demand for experiencedstaff exists because of the tremendous amount ofdevelopment activity. For example, well-designedprojects will use the most appropriate technologyfor managing traffic demand (such as signal coor-dination and appropriate turn lanes where

needed) and will control the number and locationof curb cuts to balance access to adjacent develop-ment with the need to move traffic on the road-way system.

Secure Adequate FundingThe district should work with partner jurisdic-tions and agencies to secure necessary long-termfunding sources. This issue is one of the most sig-nificant for the district to address, because with-out adequate, secure funding sources, congestionwill continue to grow and system maintenance willsuffer.

One of the funding components that should bereevaluated is the impact fees that are assessedon new developments. The impact fees that thedistrict collects made up only 16 percent of thehighway improvement budget in 2006. This contri-bution to funding road improvements is insuffi-cient to offset the actual impacts of the develop-ments to the highway system and is generallylower than fees charged in comparable citiesaround the country. The district should review theimpact fee structure in Ada County and considerincreasing these fees so that they more closely re-flect the real effects of developments on the trans-portation system.

An additional funding source that the districtshould address is the revenue generated by vehi-cle registration fees. This legislation is scheduledto sunset in 2010, and the district, working withits countywide partnerships, should work to iden-tify alternative and additional revenue sources.

Finally, another funding source that is currentlyunavailable to the district is land-secured financ-ing. This funding source is used in many otherstates to allow new development to finance itsobligations for public infrastructure over time.The district should work with the cities and thecounty to obtain state law authorization to usethis funding source, not only for road improve-ments but also for other public facilities.


The previous sections have recommended aseries of actions to be undertaken by ACHDand its partners in Ada County that can beencouraged through changes in Idaho legis-

lation. It is incumbent upon the state governmentto provide its local governments the tools requiredto respond to growth pressures, especially to meetthe higher standards of urban development ex-pected by the contemporary real estate marketand also those imposed by the federal and stategovernments. In general, the panel has found thatpublic agencies are falling short of an adequate re-sponse to the amount and quality of developmenttaking place; part of that problem stems from thelimitations established by state legislation. Ten-sion between state legislators representing urbanand rural constituencies has been an obstacle tothe jurisdictions in Ada County, for example, inkeeping pace with its transportation needs.

Therefore, this legislative change agenda re-sponds to needs to reduce competition among ju-risdictions for tax base, to implement higher realestate development standards, and to more closelylink local land use planning to the transportationand other infrastructure necessary to supportgrowth and development.

Planning and Coordination of GrowthFive legislative changes would help Ada Countyaddress transportation and land use issues in afast-growing metropolitan area.

Enable Strengthening of COMPASSTo support the activities of the Boise region’s met-ropolitan planning organization, COMPASS, thestate should require that the organization under-take planning and programming of capital im-provements and be allowed to operate services atthe request of its member jurisdictions. For exam-ple, COMPASS could sponsor a cooperative so-cioeconomic forecasting process to achieve agree-

ment on jurisdictional and small area inputs to thetraffic model.

Allow Use of Transferable Development RightsProgramsTo encourage local governments to plan for urbandensities in the most-accessible locations and toreduce permitted densities in underserved areas,the state should permit the county and its cities toadopt and manage transferable developmentrights programs. This tool for guiding growth isused increasingly in growing urban areas.

Improve School Enrollment ForecastingAnother action to improve Boise-area jurisdic-tions’ capabilities for maintaining school capacitiesin line with development trends is to amend therecently passed legislation funding public schoolbuilding operating and maintenance costs to re-quire that the school systems annually preparefive-year average daily enrollment forecasts. Theprojections would help in matching attendance tobuilding capacities, in identifying locations of in-creased traffic demands, and in prescribing streetimprovements necessary to provide adequate ac-cess to public schools.

Provide Technical Assistance to LocalitiesFederal law requires certain cities and counties toestablish agencies to undertake transportationplanning and funding. The activities of such agen-cies can provide significant encouragement forconnecting transportation systems with land useand development. Upon request, the state ofIdaho should provide technical assistance to citiesand counties responding to these regulations.

Guide Annexation and Establishment of ImpactAreasThe state should authorize the preparation of cri-teria to guide local governmental annexations andestablishment of impact area boundaries in whichfuture annexations could take place. Of particularinterest, for example, are guidelines for the timing

Suggested Legislative Agenda


of infrastructure extensions and evidence of the fi-nancial capacity of governments to increase ser-vices of such areas.

Funding for InfrastructureThese changes in state enabling legislation wouldallow ACHD, Ada County, and the six cities to im-prove their transportation and capital improve-ments programming processes while increasingrevenue to help solve transportation problems.

Infrastructure Financing DistrictsThe state should permit formation of special-purpose districts that can provide land-securedfinancing for new and improved public infrastruc-ture. Such special-purpose districts would havethe power to issue bonds to build needed public in-frastructure and to repay those bonds with taxesor assessments levied on the development servedby the financed infrastructure. They would offeran alternative to direct public funding of infra-structure for new development and a more certainflow of funding than impact fees.

Subsidies for Transit OperationsThese subsidies should be provided by state fund-ing or local option tax funding to assist in payingoperating costs for public transit, which would in-crease the extent to which transit agencies can at-tract capital grants and loans from the federalgovernment.

Improved Impact FeesThe state should amend impact fee legislation to(a) better balance the road mileage demands cre-ated by development with impact fee revenues and(b) eliminate the property tax credit. Property taxesshould be allocated solely to operating expenses.Higher fees for proposed developments in ruralareas than in developed areas would improve thelinkage of revenue sources with projected trafficdemands stimulated by the new development.

Additional Public Funding for Development-Related InfrastructureThe state should take the following actions:

• Extend the vehicle registration fee beyond its2010 expiration.

• Permit drainage fees whose revenues would besplit between ACHD and the appropriate irri-gation and drainage districts. ACHD’s drainagecosts have escalated in recent years and willcontinue to do so as development increases im-pervious surfaces and resulting stormwaterrunoff.

• Share retail sales revenue with jurisdictions atthe point of origin.

• Increase the state gasoline tax applicable totransportation improvements. (Idaho’s tax isamong the lowest in the Intermountain Region.)

• Permit Ada County jurisdictions to raise taxesand fees for public services to support growthand development. As the state’s most promi-nent urbanizing area, Ada County represents aunique economic, cultural, and educational re-source deserving public investments not neces-sarily needed by other Idaho local governments.This approach that distinguishes between urbanand rural needs has been used effectively in themetropolitan Seattle area.


The panel concluded that the current inter-governmental difficulties in integrating landuse and transportation planning in AdaCounty require the invention of a collabora-

tive entity with powers and incentives for

• Creating, through collaborative intergovern-mental discussions, integrated land use plansthat are directly related to capital planning forroads and other infrastructure;

• Changing the role of the ACHD so it buildsroads that the cities and county want; and

• Building a coalition of the cities, the county, andthe district that can advocate modifications ofstate law to provide needed tools for financingand managing growth.

The panel recommends that the local governmentsin Ada County enter into an intergovernmentalagreement that creates a forum to address theseissues by forming a Local Government Alliance(the Alliance) among the six cities in Ada County,Ada County, and the highway district.

The Local Government AllianceThe Alliance is designed to serve three key pur-poses:

• Provide stability in land use planning for thedistrict, which could then better support thecities’ and county’s transportation needs;

• Encourage high-quality development patternsand transportation facilities throughout thecounty; and

• Provide a forum for acting on a joint legislativeagenda that will provide the financing and man-agement tools necessary for the region to effec-tively respond to growth.

The panel envisions that members of the Alliancewould be elected officials appointed by the localgovernments of their respective jurisdictions (thesix cities, the county, and the district) and one citi-zen at large, whose appointment would be subjectto three-fourth’s majority approval of the othereight voting members. The citizen-at-large mem-ber would act as the chair and full-time chief exec-utive officer (CEO) of the Alliance. The CEO posi-tion should be filled by a person who is wellrespected throughout the county, perceived ascompletely unbiased, and capable of building con-sensus and resolving conflicts. The CEO shouldalso possess a thorough knowledge of planningand transportation processes.

The proposed Alliance would not constitute an-other layer of government; rather, it would form acoalition of existing governments capable of build-ing countywide cooperation in responding togrowth. Its formation would not require amend-ment of state law. The forum’s principal functionwould be to integrate the comprehensive plansand impact areas of the six cities and the countywith each other to ensure that the district’s capitalplan for transportation improvements supportsthe cities’ and county’s land use plans. Such inte-gration establishes a collaborative “bottom-up”planning process in contrast to the top-downprocess that has characterized other planning ef-forts in Ada County.

Figure 2 diagrams the sequence and responsibili-ties under the Alliance forum that would result inan integrated capital improvement plan (and Fig-ure 3 shows the existing city planning structure).The panel recommends that ACHD provide theAlliance with five-year projections of revenuesavailable to the cities and the county for trans-portation investment, the cities and the countyprovide their integrated plans to the Alliance, andthe Alliance then identify and define the projects

Creating a Contractual Alliance for Integrated Planning


Figure 2Proposed Alliance Planning Structure

YES

ACHD executes capitalimprovement plan

• Prepares annual capitalimprovement plan

• Builds new roads• Maintains new roads

NO

No new capital improvements

ò

ïðò

CITIES AND COUNTY

Provide coordinated land use plans to Alliance

PUBLIC

Participation

FUNDING

ACHD Capital improvement plan revenue sources*

ALLIANCE Seeks other sources of revenue• Local improvement districts• Grants• General funds• Redevelopment funds• Impact fees

*Commitment by ACHD to providefunds when Alliance reaches agreementon coordinated plans.

ALLIANCE

• Prepares five-year capital improvement plan

• Prioritizes projects based on available funds

Figure 3Existing City Planning Structure

YES

CITY ROADS/HIGHWAYDEPARTMENT

• Builds new roads• Maintains new roads

NO

No new capital improvements

ò

ïðò

CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Provides land use plans to city council

PUBLIC

Participation

CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT

Capital improvement plan revenue sources

City finance department seeksother sources of revenue• Local improvement districts• Grants• General funds• Redevelopment funds• Impact fees

CITY COUNCIL

• Prepares five-year capital improvement plan• Updates annually• Prioritizes projects based on available funds


to be included in the capital improvement plan andestablish priorities based upon local plans.

Elements of the AgreementThe intergovernmental agreement has two keycomponents:

• For the cities and county: In return for thecities and county agreeing to provide coordi-nated land use plans, the highway district willdelegate the countywide general highway plan-ning functions to the Alliance. The district thenbuilds and maintains a transportation networkthat complies with the various plans of the citiesand county.

• For the highway district: In return for agreeingto transfer the transportation planning respon-sibilities to the cities and the county, the districtgains integrated and stable local comprehensiveplans on which to base its services.

The agreement should address several key fea-tures, described in the following sections, forwhich the panel has identified some possible ap-proaches. As the Alliance further defines its rolesand responsibilities, it can review, revise, and fi-nalize these approaches to reflect the local govern-ments’ desires.

MembershipThe panel recommends that the Alliance considerdividing membership into two classes:

• Voting members would consist of elected offi-cials appointed by their respective jurisdictionsfrom the local governments (the six cities, thecounty, and the district) and one citizen at large,whose appointment would be subject to three-fourth’s majority approval of the other eightvoting members.

• Advisory or nonvoting members: The Alliancemay wish to consider adding advisory, nonvot-ing members to the Alliance who may include,but not necessarily be limited to, representa-tives of such entities as the Idaho Departmentof Transportation, COMPASS, and the Chamberof Commerce.

ConsensusThe panel recommends that the Alliance strive forunanimous agreement on all its considerations.Given the nature of the process and potential con-flicts, however, discussion of possible voting pro-cedures that recognize the differing circumstancesof both large and small jurisdictions is very likely.Other regional entities frequently use a two-tiervoting system that provides each jurisdiction withmeaningful voting power but also addresses theissues associated with proportionality.

Given the distribution of population in Ada County,where Boise has more than 50 percent of thecounty’s population, designing such a systemwithout making the smaller jurisdictions feeloverpowered will be difficult. In addition, ACHDcould rightfully argue that its countywide popu-lation should be considered in a proportional vot-ing system. The panel suggests that this issuerequires further study, which should include thefollowing issues:

• Making only some issues eligible for a propor-tional voting;

• Including a mechanism for resolving a disputeinvolving two land use jurisdictions that in-cludes careful consideration of the merits by theAlliance as a whole; and

• Charging the chair of the Alliance with a media-tion role for disputes between jurisdictions.

Staff SupportThe panel further recommends that support andstaff structure for the Alliance evolve over twostages:

• Stage 1 (in the short term): One senior-levelstaff person from each jurisdiction on a 30 per-cent full-time equivalent basis;

• Stage 2 (more permanent): The Alliance devel-ops a permanent support and staff structurethat could be the continuation of in-kind staff.

Administrative FundingThe panel recommends that the participating ju-risdictions provide interim startup funds, largelyfor salary of the CEO, limited support staff, andservices (for the first six months, a rough estimate


of $300,000–$350,000, which could be substantiallyreduced based upon more extensive in-kind con-tribution of staffing or support services). Thesefunds would be provided on a 50-50 basis by thedistrict, on the one hand, and the cities and county(based on 50 cents per capita), on the other. Possi-bly, state funds, federal funds, or both could be se-cured that would even further reduce the neces-sary local dues. Some level of local dues should beretained, however, to convey a local financial com-mitment to the Alliance and to provide grant-matching capabilities if state or federal funds canbe obtained.

ExpectationsThe members’ expectations as a result of forma-tion of and participation in the Alliance are envi-sioned by the panel as follows:

• For the cities and and the county:

• Improved coordination of land use and trans-portation planning among the cities, thecounty, and the district;

• Improved integration and coordination ofcomprehensive plans and countywide agree-ment on areas of impact and future annexa-tions; and

• Improved control of highway infrastructure(from both a land use consistency and a quali-tative perspective).

• For the highway district:

• Stability in the implementation and construc-tion of the cities’ and the county’s transporta-tion infrastructure; and

• Continuation of the provision of services asoutlined in the panel’s recommendations re-garding the district’s roles, especially mainte-nance and operation of local streets androads.

• For the Alliance:

• Preparation and approval of the five-yearcapital improvement plan;

• Sponsorship of common legislative initiatives;

• Provision of a countywide forum;

• Establishment of appropriate impact fee lev-els across the six cities, the county, and thedistrict;

• Oversight of transportation modeling to en-sure comparable and accurate traffic projec-tions are being used; and

• Encouragement of better infrastructure plan-ning in nontransportation areas through, forinstance, creation of model public facilities or-dinances that tie the rate of growth to theavailability of public facilities.

Benefits of Alliance Membership The panel envisions that the agreement and Al-liance could further lead to a broader, more inte-grated transportation plan that could include arange of transportation modes, such as bus rapidtransit, light rail, bikes, and pedestrian compo-nents. Continued operations and maintenanceneeds also can be addressed by the district inthe context of the integrated plan, including thefollowing:

• Local government allocations of transportationfunds to jurisdictions where an agreement hasbeen reached;

• A local government role in determining the de-sign and quality of transportation facilities(with an option to enhance those facilities whenthe cities or county are willing to fund theadded costs);

• Improved transparency and accountability ofdecision making;

• Denial of transportation funding to develop-ment that is inconsistent with the comprehen-sive transportation plan; and

• Common, and therefore much more effective,legislative advocacy positions within the statelegislative processes.

In summary, unless the cities and the county takea proactive approach toward countywide coordina-tion and cooperation, the consequences of contin-ued and even accelerated growth will be substan-


tially more sprawl, increased traffic congestion,loss of economic competitiveness, deteriorating airquality, loss of open space, and an overall deterio-ration of the quality of life in Ada County. Thesechallenges warrant a concerted, collaborative ef-fort by the cities and the county to take the neces-sary actions to avoid those kinds of outcomes. Thepanel has proposed a solution that calls for coordi-nation of local comprehensive plans, agreements

on the respective impact areas of each city, an in-tegrated approach to future annexations, andadopting integrated public facilities ordinances(especially transportation).

The incentive for the cities and the county toenter into such an agreement is based upon a com-mitment by the ACHD to provide constructionfunds for transportation improvements when theAlliance reaches agreement on a coordinated andintegrated countywide capital improvement plandirectly related to the integrated land use plans.Until the Alliance provides an integrated capitalimprovement plan, the district will focus on its op-erations and maintenance responsibilities. If a cityapproves a development inconsistent with itsadopted comprehensive plan, the district willwithhold its signature from the plat map and fund-ing for highway construction that serves thatproject.

The panel envisions thesign saying: “This roadimprovement project wasapproved by the Cities ofBoise and Meridian and isbeing built by ACHD.”


One of the panelists, Mayor Janet Taylor of Salem, Oregon, ended the formal presen-tation in Boise with the following appealfor sensible and productive collaborationamong governments in Ada County, whichthe panel echoes.

The panel was impressed with the beauty andopportunities so evident in Ada County, butdevelopment continues to raise questionsabout the future quality of this rich living

and working environment. Clearly, the status quoapproach to guiding development can no longerapply. Elected officials, especially, are learningthat this area cannot afford—either financially orpolitically—to endure more years of inaction, addi-tional studies, and poor coordination of land useand transportation.

Current customer service levels are inadequate,and litigation, personality conflicts, and competi-tion among government entities have eroded tax-payer support for the present structure of inter-governmental relations. And let us not forget thatfor elected officials the ultimate client is the tax-payer.

The current behavior and structure of decisionmaking about development issues leaves the high-way district with no certainty about desired landuse that enables it to plan for the region’s futuretransportation system. As a result, the cities andthe county cannot rely on provision of roads andother services that meet the needs of the peoplewho live in the area. It is time for a change! Asmayor of Salem, Oregon, which is also a capitalcity in a large metropolitan area, I can easily seethat there are efficiencies in combined service de-livery that can eliminate duplication of equipment,studies, and administration. I can also see the dif-ficulty of meshing the needs of a larger commu-nity with those of the smaller cities.

In Ada County, the majority of the higher-payingjobs are in the city of Boise, with many of the em-ployees residing to the west. You are dependenton each other for the ultimate success of providingboth homes and jobs for the area. It is imperativethat you become supportive of each city’s visionand identify common goals for the region that willunite your efforts to guide future growth. Goodland use and transportation systems are goals youhave in common; working together on those goalsdoes not require that you lose the unique charac-ter of your individual communities.

The panel’s recommendation is to form a decision-making entity—the Local Government Alliance—that enables the highway district to provide trans-portation services as determined by the majorityof the Alliance members in return for the citiesand county ensuring predictability in land use.The result is higher-quality development, roadsthat add value to your communities, and greaterpolitical strength at the state level to obtain thetools you need to fund your infrastructure.

Elected officials set the tone for your communitiesfor the present and the future. The tone needs tobe one of teamwork, cooperation, and prudent useof taxpayer dollars. The panel has confidence thatyou can move forward, and we challenge you toput the past behind you, provide the leadership tostep up to a new approach, and take this opportu-nity to make your area the best it can be for todayand for the future.

It is time for a change!

Conclusion

Charles A. LongPanel ChairBerkeley, California

Long is a developer specializing in mixed-use infillprojects, including acquisition, entitlement, con-sulting, and development. He has 31 years of di-verse experience in local government and develop-ment with an emphasis on economic development,finance, and public/private partnerships. He servedfor eight years as city manager in Fairfield, Cali-fornia, a city with a national reputation as innova-tive and well managed.

Since 1996, Long has worked as a consultant topublic and private clients on development andmanagement. He has held interim positions forseveral cities in finance, redevelopment, and man-agement, including, most recently, interim townmanager of Mammoth Lakes, California. His as-signments have been diverse, including writing re-development plans, working on development proj-ects, conducting pro forma analysis, conductingstrategic planning, representing public agencies innegotiations, marketing development opportuni-ties, assisting with organizational development,conducting capital and financial planning, imple-menting budget reform, analyzing base reuse, andpromoting alternative energy development. Hehas overseen more than $600 million of public fi-nancing in his career. Since 2005, Long has workedon real estate development focused in northernCalifornia and northern Nevada.

Long is a full member of the Urban Land Instituteand, within ULI, a member of the Public PrivatePartnership Council, a member the Policy andPractices Committee, and a faculty member forthe Real Estate Development Process: Part IIand Decision-Making for Development Profession-als courses. He has worked on eight ULI Advi-sory Panels, most recently chairing a panel inSalem, Oregon. He has taught at the School of

Public Administration at Golden Gate Universityand has conducted courses on economic develop-ment and organizational change internationally.

Long has a BA in economics from Brown Univer-sity and a master’s of public policy from Univer-sity of California, Berkeley. He served in the U.S.Army as an infantry platoon sergeant.

William DowdWashington, D.C.

Dowd has 22 years of public service that includehighway engineering, planning, and constructionexperience with the Connecticut Department ofTransportation and the Federal Highway Admin-istration; and project review, development, andimplementation experience with the NationalCapital Planning Commission, where he hasworked since 1998.

His experience as a highway engineer includes workin Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York,Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C., giving him abroad background in this field. While in the Fed-eral Highway Administration headquarters office,he also conducted national reviews of constructionand project management practices.

With the National Capital Planning Commission,Dowd manages a division that is responsible foradvancing and implementing planning initiativesin a city with many overlapping jurisdictional in-terests, including city, regional, and federal bod-ies. Specific projects have included design anddevelopment of national memorials, such as theWorld War II Memorial; redesign of PennsylvaniaAvenue in front of the White House; guidelines forstreetscape and security improvements at federalbuildings in the city; and a feasibility study of relo-cating freight rail traffic away from the monumen-tal core of the nation’s capital.


About the Panel


Dowd is a member of the Urban Land Institute.He is also a member of the American Society ofCivil Engineers and has been a member of theAmerican Planning Association and the Instituteof Transportation Engineers. He has a BS in civilengineering from the University of Connecticut,and a Professional Engineer license from theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Matthew McKinneyHelena, Montana

McKinney is director of the Public Policy ResearchInstitute at the University of Montana. The insti-tute was created by the Board of Regents in 1987and fosters sustainable communities and landscapesthrough collaborative governance. Prior to hiscurrent position, McKinney served as the found-ing director of the Montana Consensus Council forten years. During the past 20-plus years, he hasdesigned, facilitated, and mediated more than 50public dialogues, including citizen participationand multiparty negotiations on issues related tofederal land management, water policy, fish andwildlife, land use planning and growth manage-ment, public health and human services, tax pol-icy, and campaign finance reform.

McKinney received a PhD in natural resource pol-icy and conflict resolution from the University ofMichigan. He has published numerous articles injournals and books and is coauthor of The WesternConfluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Re-sources (Island Press, 2004). He teaches work-shops, seminars, and courses on natural resourcepolicy and public dispute resolution and serves onthe board of advisers for the Rocky MountainLand Use Institute and the Intermountain Chap-ter of the International Association for Public Par-ticipation. McKinney is a senior lecturer at theUniversity of Montana’s School of Law, a facultyassociate at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,and a senior partner with the Consensus BuildingInstitute. He was a research fellow at the John F.Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univer-sity, in 2000 and 2002. He lives with his wife andthree daughters in Helena, Montana.

Michael T. McLaughlinHemet, California

McLaughlin is an urban planning consultant and apart-time member of the faculty in the undergrad-uate and graduate program for city planning at SanDiego State University (SDSU). He had been thedirector of Regional Planning for the San DiegoAssociation of Governments (SANDAG) for abouta dozen years before his retirement in 2004. AtSANDAG, his responsibilities included directing awide range of regional planning activities, includ-ing preparation and coordination of binationalplanning activities, environmental managementprocesses, housing markets and plans preparation,habitat and open space conservation, and land useplanning and urban design studies. This work alsoincluded preparation of the Regional Comprehen-sive Plan and regional strategies for growth andgrowth management–related issues. Prior toworking for SANDAG, he was a city planner inColumbus, Ohio, and directed the community de-velopment planning program and established itsfirst community planning program.

McLaughlin has an undergraduate degree anda master’s degree in public administration fromNorthern Illinois University and a master’s de-gree in city and regional planning from the OhioState University. He currently is, or recently was,on the board of directors for Citizens Coordinatefor Century-3, the Regionalism Task Force forEnvision San Diego, the governor’s appointee forthe Advisory Board for the Government Technol-ogy Corporation, and the Regional Homeless TaskForce. He has made numerous presentations andguest lectures on regional growth and growthmanagement planning and coordination in a vari-ety of government, academic, and private sectorvenues across the country. He is active in theAmerican Planning Association (APA) where hehas served in a variety of positions, including sec-tion director and national awards jurist, and re-ceived the award for Distinguished Leadership bya Professional Planner from the San Diego APA in2004. He was awarded the Outstanding Lecturerat SDSU in spring 2007.


cities (Denver, Colorado), small towns (Aspen,Colorado), and regional agencies (San FranciscoBay Area Rapid Transit District [BART]).

Currently, Roberts serves as the director of com-munity development for the city of Littleton, Col-orado. A midsized suburb of Denver, Littleton ishome to 47,000 people. It is situated between twomajor highway corridors and is the end of the linefor the area’s first light rail, which has been oper-ating since 2000. Roberts manages a departmentof 17, overseeing all new development and rede-velopment in the city. She coordinates extensivelywith public works, traffic, and engineering, as wellas outside agencies, elected and appointed offi-cials, and citizen groups. She has been with thecity since October 2002. Upon arriving at the city,she undertook a departmental assessment to as-certain how best to allocate the limited staff re-sources of the department to meet desired servicelevels and identified customer needs. This assess-ment has been the basis for restructuring of posi-tions to better achieve city council goals.

As executive director of the Aspen/Pitkin CountyHousing Authority, Roberts managed an intergov-ernmental agency charged with developing, man-aging, and setting policy for affordable housing.She led the authority through an expansion of itsdevelopment program, bringing more than 200new affordable units into the program. She wasresponsible for negotiating land deals, setting de-velopment programs, and obtaining project enti-tlements. She also secured the long-term afford-ability of existing housing stock by working withlandowners to convert rental property to afford-able ownership units. While at BART she led theorganization’s first strategic planning effort, whichentailed examination of management as well asoperational systems. She worked with the electedboard and senior staff to identify core service val-ues, create a vision for the agency’s future, and es-tablish implementation priorities.

Roberts also has experience working with advo-cacy groups and citizen involvement. While atthe Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, a regional non-profit group in the San Francisco area, she workedwith local volunteers to achieve a regional trailsystem for an eight-county area. Educating vol-unteers, decision makers, property owners, and

Douglas R. PorterChevy Chase, Maryland

Porter is a nationally recognized authority on man-aging community and regional growth. In consult-ing and writing, and through the nonprofit GrowthManagement Institute that he founded in 1992, heconducts research and engages in educational ac-tivities to improve the policy and practice of growthmanagement. From 1979 to 1991, Porter directedthe public policy research program of the UrbanLand Institute. His work bridges traditional spe-cialties in urban planning and development, fromaffordable housing programs to transportation/land use relationships, regional growth strategies,transit-oriented development, community involve-ment, and local community development issues.Recently, he has advised Coweta County, Georgia;Maryville and Blount County, Tennessee; andPalm Beach County, Florida, on growth issues. Heregularly lectures on growth management topicsat conferences, workshops, and universities.

His recent publications include Smart Growth En-dorsement/Rating Systems (APA); Breaking theLogjam: Civic Engagement by Developers andPlanners (ULI); Inclusionary Zoning for Afford-able Housing (ULI); Developing around Transit(chapter on suburban transportation-oriented de-velopments) (ULI); Exploring ‘Ad Hoc’ Regional-ism (Lincoln Institute); and Making Smart GrowthWork (ULI). Currently, he is completing a newedition of Managing Growth in America’s Com-munities (Island Press) and a book about thevalue of design for ULI.

Porter is an AICP Fellow and has been a ULIFellow and chair of the Maryland TransportationCommission. He received a BS and MS in urbanand regional planning from Michigan State Uni-versity and the University of Illinois, respectively.

Mary RobertsLittleton, Colorado

Roberts has 25 years of experience in land use,transportation, housing, and economic develop-ment. Her background spans the public, private,and nonprofit sectors. She has worked for large


donors formed the basis of her work. As a consul-tant in the private sector, she has produced com-prehensive, special area, and neighborhood plansas well as environmental assessments for develop-ment projects.

Roberts holds a master’s degree in urban plan-ning from the University of Colorado at Denver, amaster’s in public administration from the John F.Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and abachelor’s degree in social sciences from IllinoisState University.

David C. SlaterReston, Virginia

Now semi-retired, Slater was a development eco-nomics consultant for more than 32 years, a re-gional planner for seven years, and a communitydevelopment association staff member for threeyears. He has been responsible for a range of de-velopment strategy, development program, andreal estate market analyses in 23 states and wasan adjunct professor of planning at the Universityof Virginia.

He analyzed development economics issues facedby cities, counties, and states seeking new privateinvestments and reallocations of public resources.These assignments were often focused on down-town and neighborhood revitalization, transporta-tion infrastructure, growth management, large-scale redevelopment, and demand for communityfacilities. On these topics Slater has presentedmore than 30 papers at national conferences andother papers at regional conferences of his peers.He is the author of the “green book” on Manage-ment of Local Planning published by the Interna-tional City/County Management Association.

Slater holds a master’s of regional planning fromthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill anda BS in planning from Michigan State University.

Jim SoulesSeattle, Washington

Soules is a principal and founder of The CottageCompany, LLC, a Seattle-based residential devel-opment company focused on building “pocket

neighborhoods” of detached single-family homes,cottages, and compact homes. He has a BA in eco-nomics from University of California, Berkeley,and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Soules began his career as a planner with theMarin County (California) Planning Departmentand has 30 years of experience in residential de-velopment that includes single- and multifamilyprojects in California and Washington. Prior tolaunching The Cottage Company in 1996, heserved as president of Acacia Construction Inc. (a medium-sized California residential developer),country director for Save the Children’s AfghanRefugee Program in Pakistan, and executive di-rector of Threshold Housing (a Seattle nonprofithousing developer).

Since 1996, The Cottage Company has completedseven communities, several of which have re-ceived national and regional awards. The com-pany’s projects are seen as models for the shift to“better rather than bigger” green building and torestoring community to our neighborhoods. Souleshas been on several national housing award juriesand a speaker or panelist at many housing forums.He is actively involved in conversations with mu-nicipalities and public groups who seek to createnew housing choices in their communities.

Janet TaylorSalem, Oregon

Taylor is in her third term as mayor of Salem,Oregon. She was the co-owner and operator of ametal roofing manufacturing company for 18 yearsand continues as a partner in a development com-pany dealing with land use issues, leasing, andgeneral contracting for residential and indus-trial projects.

She has been vice president of the Salem AreaChamber of Commerce and chair of Sedcor—thelargest economic development group in Oregon,serves on the board of the Convention and Visi-tors Association, and is president of the OregonChapter of the National Brownfields Association.

Taylor’s service as mayor has brought a pro-business atmosphere and collaboration between


diverse interests to work for the benefit of theentire community. This has resulted in a new con-ference center and hotel in downtown, with sixdowntown historic buildings undergoing majormixed-use renovations.

Under her leadership, a 500-acre industrial park isnow “shovel ready,” private investors are buildingin urban renewal districts, and the city is relocat-ing facilities to assemble a master site for a uni-

versity to build a performing arts center. She ledthe presentation for a statewide competition thatresulted in the selection of Salem for a $56 milliongrant for a Salvation Army Kroc Community Cen-ter, bringing a major aquatic and recreational fa-cility to the area.

Taylor attended Chemeketa Community Collegeand obtained her private pilot’s license in 1981.

an advisory services panel report ada county highway district

Documents